How shall we regard Pottermore

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Books are canon.

Movies are not canon.

Interviews are not canon.

Are we to regard Pottermore, and the information released in it, as canon?


I.e., when Pottermore contradicts something in one of the books, is that a canon inconsistency or do we just ignore Pottermore?

When Pottermore contradicts a pet theory, must we adjust the theory or ignore Pottermore?

Can we come to a group consensus on this?

Comments

[aasaylva.livejournal.com]

I'd say, if interviews do not count as canon, Pottermore shouldn't either. So I'd take Pottermore as suggestion but not as dogma.

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Pottermore seems the same level of canon as the interviews, to me.

[oryx_leucoryx]

How about when Pottermore contradicts interviews? (See for example Minerva's love life.)

Books take precedence over anything else. Any pet theory must fit with the books. When the fitting requires characters to be lying we need evidence at the very least that said character has a record of lying or that the character stated the opposite or there is something in the books that at least implies the opposite. (For example Terri's analysis of all what Albus has to say about the circumstances of his acquisition of the ring and the injury of his hand, vs all other evidence the books provide.)

I consider Pottermore/interviews as 'serving suggestions'. If they contradict the books I ignore them. If they add to world building I might consider them. Don't forget that the enchanted Hogwarts quill is almost entirely 'interview' construct. The only hints in canon are Albus' claim to Mrs Cole that Tom Riddle was registered at his school since birth (and we know he deceived her on other matters) and maybe what Hagrid tells the Dursleys.

If I knew Rowling went over her books before writing for Pottermore I would take the new revelations more seriously (and definitely over stuff she says on the spot in interviews). But since she claims she doesn't reread, well, it seems she is just randomly fanwanking herself. At most Pottermore reveals what she wants her characters to be like. Not necessarily what they are like.

[sigune.livejournal.com]

With all the holes in the books, I can't really take Pottermore as canon. If she cared so much about backstories and details, why couldn't she be bothered to get them right in the books? I'm not even sure why she's sharing all this stuff now.

Ah well.

As far as I am concerned, Pottermore simply contains suggestions that we may use at our own discretion. :p

[dracasadiablo.livejournal.com]

I don't consider it true cannon. If it's interesting and makes sense I might accept it. But if not I'll happily ignore it. XD

Btw, This is what JKR wrote about "Ghost plots" on Pottermore :

Ghost plots

This is a personal expression, which has nothing to do with tales of the dead.

Over the seventeen years that I planned and wrote the seven Harry Potter books (not to mention Quidditch through the Ages, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them and The Tales of Beedle the Bard), I generated a mass of information about the magical world that never appeared in the books. I liked knowing these things (which was fortunate, given that I couldn't stop my imagination spewing it all out) and often, when I needed a throwaway detail, I had it ready because of the background I had developed.

I also found myself developing storylines for secondary (or even tertiary) characters that were superfluous to requirements. More of a wrench were the plots I worked out for some much more important characters that had to be sacrificed for the bigger story. All of these I inwardly termed 'ghost plots', my private expression for all the untold stories that sometimes seemed quite as real to me as the 'final cut'. I have occasionally been in conversation with a reader and made mention of part of a ghost plot; looks of consternation cross their faces as, for a split second, they ask themselves whether they have accidentally skipped twenty pages somewhere. I apologise to anyone I might have accidentally wrong-footed in this way; the problem is, literally, all in my head.

[oryx_leucoryx]

OK, but take my current pet example - Minerva. There's a post-DH interview where she states Minerva never found love. Then in Pottermore she comes up with 2 relationships for her. So we can't trust Pottermore to be about 'ghost plots' that were in the back of her head while she was writing the books. At least some of it is material she came up with recently. And considering she doesn't reread, we can't trust her to have taken care to make it work without contradicting what is in the books.

[snapes-witch.livejournal.com]

I was willing to accept Pottermore as canon until she screwed up Minerva's timeline at Hogwarts. Actually I didn't particularly like her backstory . . .

[oryx_leucoryx]

What is your preferred timeline for her?

[sunnyskywalker]

The one part I did like about the McGonagall backstory was Dumbledore revealing just enough of his own family history (which was very little, I'm betting... probably just "gosh it was hard dealing with my mother's family sometimes") to her to build fellow-feeling and sympathy. It seems like the kind of thing that might partly explain her loyalty toward him (since she'd feel like he really "got" her, was so wise and sympathetic, had managed to live a cheerful and professionally fulfilling life after... whatever he told her happened, etc.). Plus, it's similar to what Tom does, like in CoS when Diary!Tom reveals just enough about his tragic orphan-among-Muggles background to make Harry sympathetic toward him, and that is a parallel I find interesting :-D

[duniazade.livejournal.com]

I'm still interested in the Potterverse, but ignoring Pottermore entirely.

An author who has botched so thoroughly the end of her story and boasts of not re-reading her texts has no business talking about them.

Canon is the text of the books at time of publication, full stop.

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

The way I see it, canon stops with the books- everything else is just hearsay.

I spend a lot of time around multimedia franchises, which frequently have conflicts between media. Usually I'll just pick one source I like best (usually the one that came first) and ignore everything else I don't like.

[the-bitter-word.livejournal.com]

For purposes of this community, I'd say you already have consensus! My vote: I am happy to ignore Pottermore. However, if someone brings Pottermore into the discussion, I am going to take the information as it comes and let it stand on its merits.

For someone constructing pet theories outside this community (I guess about plot or theme), I'd say realistically whether or not Pottermore is canon is a matter of choice and depends.

* If I'm arguing canon with someone who is interested in Minerva McGonagall, that person may incorporate the Pottermore material as she chooses and will consider my argument invalid because I don't include Pottermore. If I disagree, I will spend all my time arguing about what is canon or the sliding scale of canon relevance.

* If I am reading fanfic by someone who incorporates the Pottermore material while she has McGonagall considering a "friends with benefits" relationship with Dumbledore, that person is presumably allowed to write her story by Rowling and anything goes in fanfic. If I say the story is non-canonical, I will just come off as mean-spirited.

For me, "canon" is always a moving target, something I take in context, something I usually view with an intellectual detachment (even if it's about Snape -- no, really), something subjective. For example, when the last movie came out, suddenly everyone became enraptured with Severus Snape. In some ways, the film version supplanted the book as canon. Interviews are as influential as films for most peoples' canon, and I suspect Pottermore will be even more influential for those who still care. Outside this community, I probably won't come down hard on someone who incorporates Pottermore information or someone who writes McGonagall/Dumbledore in a "no strings" scenario. Wait, Dumbledore was gay? Where was that in the books?

But to echo what others have said, it seems to me that notes allegedly made while planning a book should be less persuasive that material that did make it into the books. Anyone who's written tons of notes and discarded whole piles of them could probably testify that some material just doesn't fit, and some even contradicts the facts that the author decided to incorporate into the work or the tone of the work or the message. The notes might be interesting as an insight into the writer's intention or mindset while writing the books, sort of the stream-of-consciousness way of analyzing a work, but then again, there's the Death of the Author (http://www.tbook.constantvzw.org/wp-content/death_authorbarthes.pdf) or What Is an Author? (http://www.scholarcache.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Foucault-WHAT-IS-AN-AUTHOR.pdf) The latter is interpreted (http://www.lawrence.edu/dept/english/courses/60a/handouts/author.html) to say, "the author is not a source of infinite meaning, as we often like to imagine, but rather part of a larger system of beliefs that serve to limit and restrict meaning... [T]hink about how we might appeal to ideas of 'authorial intention' in order to limit what someone might say about a text, or mark some interpretations and commentaries as illegitimate."

The back stories -- are they are from notes made while the book was being written, or have they been written specifically for Pottermore? I'm not sure. In either case, Rowling has shown herself to be an unreliable source on facts. Ask her a question about McGonagall tomorrow, and odds are you will get new material that contradicts earlier information. Further, if she had minimal continuity or other editing for the books, she probably has less to none for Pottermore.

[sunnyskywalker]

I think you've explained it very well! The books are the core, indisputably canon canon. The movies, interviews, Pottermore notes, etc. are most definitely "more" canon than, say, some random person's ideas, and you could consider them as part of an all-inclusive JKR canon... but if they contradict the books, I think all that peripheral material is "less" canon and will be voted off the canon island first. (And if something doesn't contradict the books, but doesn't seem to make a difference one way or the other, then I'd take it as strong suggestions.) But I wouldn't go so far as to say that all the Pottermore stuff is definitely not under any circumstances canon. (I'm fine with the mostly-interview-canon Hogwarts Quill, eg. It fits with what we know well enough. And given that we don't have solid hints at alternative ways for babies to be given reserved places at Hogwarts, I'd probably see that as "more" canon than some other invention. Not that I'd be against another solution, but it would be pretty firmly in fanon territory for me.)

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

For example, when the last movie came out, suddenly everyone became enraptured with Severus Snape. In some ways, the film version supplanted the book as canon.

Really? Where? And (if other people don't mind spoliers) how do people view canon differently, now?

I'm apparently not hanging around communities where the movie has changed anything.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I think the Pottermore material is canon. It's 'published' work of the author.

Which doesn't make it any less fun to find the inconsistencies with the books or interviews. What has there been so far? The McGonagall thing, I take it, was a conflict with an interview, but interviews aren't canon.

I've seen a couple of mentions that Rowling slipped up with her Pottermore excerpts on Merlin; he attended Hogwarts, but it's felt that the wizard pre-dated the Founders. Does anyone recall any canon 'facts' about Merlin which show there's a contradiction?

[oryx_leucoryx]

The point about Merlin is that Arthurian legend deals with the period that came early after the withdrawal of organized Roman forces from the British Isles and the transition from pagan religion to Christianity - ie early 5th century CE. If in the Potterverse Merlin attended Hogwarts then he isn't the same figure that features in Arthurian legend.

[sunnyskywalker]

I'm not sure I'd really count it as "published," although I suppose you could say it's "more published" than interviews - but still, it seems like a lot of disorganized notes and "I had this funny dream once" ramblings rather than an organized and finished body of work meant to be published in a metafictional/game/whatever format (which I agree could be a form of publication). But I'm not on Pottermore myself, so I'll concede to the opinions of those who are on that point. And really, who could tell, I guess.

Maybe it's canon-ish? Canonesque? Quasi-canon?

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

I think I'll consider the Pottermore material to be canon when it supports my arguments and ignore it when it doesn't. :)

[snapes-witch.livejournal.com]

Sounds quite reasonable to me!!

[karentheunicorn.livejournal.com]

bla...pottermore. Now McGonagall had a big fat romance and was married. It's a pretty weird story and I can't exactly say why I find it weird - maybe it's more like Oh crap another character in the Potter story had a screwed up life because of magic..well damn. And WTF,

It just drips of the same drama and I don't mean to be such a bitch about it but comeon JKR, what was wrong with Minerva just being a woman who never had a romance and lived for her job. I guess that wasn't good enough, we gotta throw some inexpensive romance at her to, like icing on an already heavily dosed sugar cake...we wanna feel bad for the life story of another character. So lets make it sappy and depressing.

And to back the WTF train up, didn't we already hear of another characters mother not telling the husband the truth about being a witch; or no wait...this story has been told a couple of times hasn't it?

How many times is she gonna beat that horse? it's seriously stinking of magical people are some pretty damn dishonest people.


Back on topic, Pottermore almost seems like a way for Rowling to give out more Potter info without actually having to write a book. So, she can basicly write out anything she wants and some fans are just going to accept it as canon because it came from JKR. Doesn't matter if it contradicts anything or even if it doesn't quite make much sense.

If pottermore contradicts an interview it doesn't seem like as much of a big deal because frankly I doubt if she remembers half the information she gave out in interviews. If it contradicts the actual books then I say more power to her, if she can't be bothered to fact check or pay people to fact check then she ends up being the one who looks like she doesn't know whats in the books.

[sunnyskywalker]

I would really like to see a happy magical/Muggle family for once. Even given the built-in stresses of the situation, surely someone, somewhere made it work?

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

----How many times is she gonna beat that horse? it's seriously stinking of magical people are some pretty damn dishonest people.

I had always thought that a witch marrying a Muggle was something of an anamoly, but now it's starting to sound like it's a fairly occurrence. So I'm trying to figure out why so many witches choose to marry Muggle men, given all of the problems it causes. It sounds like they basically have to live as Muggles if they marry Muggles. Why would they make such a sacrifice?

Are there not enough eligible wizards to go around? Or are witches often treated so poorly in the WW that they're better off living in the Muggle world, even though it means giving up their magic?

[caketime.livejournal.com]

I personally thought it'd be canon, but honestly, I'll happily regard it as non-canon. It seems quickly written ... that's actually my main point.

I did the sorting twice and I got sorted into Hufflepuff once and Ravenclaw once, even though I answered both 100% honestly. It probably depends on what questions you get. I bet that if I'd do the sorting quiz a third or fourth time I'd get Gryffindor too. So I'm even taking the sorting with a pinch of salt.

[harpsi-fizz.livejournal.com]

Pottermore is another way for JK to micro-manage everything about her world. I'm going to believe what I want to believe and disregard parts that I don't like. The Stans can go screw themselves because people do that all the time in fanfiction. Harry Potter belongs to all of us now.

[wolf-willow31.livejournal.com]

I'm not planning to waste much time on Pottermore (I'd rather be reading, and writing fanfic). I expect Pottermore to be inconsistent with the books and interviews, as well as internally inconsistent (I mean, this is JRK, ya know?).

It seems to me that there's book canon, and there's also movie canon, which is separate. The movies have different writers and major differences in plot. Many young kids will now start with the movies, because their parents will buy them the DVDs and they will watch then over and over again, long before they can read, so I suppose that the movies will become canon for many of them.

The books, the movies, the interviews, Beadle the Bard, the Prequel (*gags*) … and now Pottermore:

another way for JKR to micro-manage (and further screw up) everything …

Yup. Make mine fanfic.